ED v West Bengal & Mamata Banerjee Over IPAC Raid : Live Updates From Supreme Court

Divan then takes the Court through provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act regarding establishment of ED and its functions.

Divan : ED is essentially a Department within the Department of Revenue. If we allow this, then a situation can arise where Article 32 is being used by one department against another department or between two States or between Centre or and the states. This is really to be appropriately decided by a panel of 5 judges.

Divan argues that the issue whether a Government Department like ED can file a writ petition under Article 32 against the State must be heard by a 5-judge bench.

Bench allows Divan to start submissions on maintainability.

Divan begins submissions on maintainability of the petition .

Divan: Ed is not a juristic entity and does it cannot maintain a petition under article 32. Second, if the fundamental rights of ED cannot be breached then the Article 32 petition is not maintainable.

SG interjects, says the State of West Bengal has filed Article 32 petition. State of Kerala has filed writ petition.

Justice Mishra refuses to adjourn matter.

Justice Mishra says, "Let them (ED) start arguing, you can respond later."

Divan says in that case, the State's preliminary objection to the maintainability of the ED's petition must be heard first. SG opposes, saying he wants to open on merits.

Justice Mishra says both issues (merits and maintainability) can be considered together. Divan opposes, says maintainabity must be considered as preliminary issue.

Justice Mishra : You cannot dictate what the Court should do.

Divan: We need time to file response as rejoinder has very lengthy paragraphs of new assertions which have travelled beyond the scope of the petition.

Divan: After my counter on merits was filed, they(ED) filed this rejoinder which travels beyond the scope of the petition. And they will have to satisfy why they have come here under Article 32

Divan: if court ignores the rejoinder then there is no problem but if the rejoinder is going to be looked into...

J Mishra: Why should we ignore anything? You cannot dictate.

Divan: I can only request.

J Mishra: Whatever is on record we will consider it

Divan: What is on record includes the rejoinder which travels beyond the scope of petition.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the ED, opposes adjournment, saying that the ED's rejoinder was filed 4 weeks' back. "You had no time to get instructions for 4 weeks. It is a serious case where a sitting Chief Minister disrupted ED raid," SG says.

Divan repeats adjournment request. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for the State, also backs Divan's request.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for the State of West Bengal, requests for adjournment, seeking time to file response to the rejoinder filed by the ED.

Divan says that the ED's rejoinder has new facts, which need to be traversed.